CDCR Reports First COVID-19 Related Death at Correctional Training Facility; Total Death Toll Reaches 89 – Breaking Down COVID-19 in CDCR

Share:

Davis Vanguard’s daily update from CDCR’s COVID-19 crisis:

As of Dec. 3, there have been 21,953 confirmed cases of COVID-19 throughout the CDCR system. Of those cases, 17,539 have been resolved while 3,833 remain active in custody. There have been 89 deaths throughout all facilities. 

  • Correctional Training Facility (CTF) has reported its third death. CTF also reported 128 new resolved cases .
  • Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) resolved 131 cases. SATF leads with the highest number of new active cases in the last two weeks.
  • The number of confirmed cases at San Quentin State Prison (SQ) decreased by 3 overnight. SQ currently has only 2 active cases.
  • Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) reported 285 new cases in one day.

Note: The definition of tested aligns with that prescribed by Johns Hopkins University. The tested count reported by a facility includes the total number of tests for which results have returned and not the total number of tests administered.

Source: The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports COVID-19 information through a daily dashboard that is accessible here – https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/population-status-tracking/.

By Julietta Bisharyan, Nick Gardner, Jaskiran Soomal, Mengyu Yang & Aparna Komarla

Contact: Aparna Komarla (apkomarla@ucdavis.edu)

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

5 thoughts on “CDCR Reports First COVID-19 Related Death at Correctional Training Facility; Total Death Toll Reaches 89 – Breaking Down COVID-19 in CDCR”

    1. Bill Marshall

      Yes… and nursing homes and convelescent places are doing great in culling the herd… and as long as they are cremated quickly, makes it safer for all of the rest of us!

      Very Republican, ‘conservative’ of you… to recommend ‘herd immunity’…

      Now if we just stopped staffing those facilities, to prevent community spread, “we’d get ‘er done!”

      Same for Correctional facilities… pull staff out, let nature take its course…

       

  1. Robert Canning

    This is a misleading headline. Here is the definition of design capacity:

    Design capacity is the number of inmates a prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for housing.

    This was the definition the Supreme Court used in its 2011 order reducing the system’s population. It is based on one inmate per cell. The courts and most experts recognize that this is not how prisons are run – double-celling is the rule rather than the exception. The court ordered that the department reduce its population to 137.5% of capacity, which it did in 2017 or so. In January 2020 the system was at 134% of capacity (see https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2020/02/Tpop1d2001.pdf) and would have stayed about that level but for COVID-19.

    As far as I know, “design capacity” is not a big issue. What’s more important is the disease. Getting the population down to a level where the disease can be safely managed and the inmates protected is the top priority. The population of the 35 prisons has been below 100,000 for over a month.

    Using the term “design capacity” to somehow criticize CDCR is misleading and does not really address the issue – COVID. The actual number of inmates housed is the real issue, not design capacity.

    1. Aparna Komarla

      Hi Robert,

      Thank you for the feedback.

      I understand that despite the population being over capacity, it is significantly lesser than its previous size. However, I do not think that design capacity and acceptable population sizes during COVID-19 are mutually exclusive measurements. The definition you provided on design capacity is close to an ideal environment in prisons and jails to handle COVID-19, which would resemble the result of population growth control.

      If I understand your comment correctly, you are suggesting that aiming to bring populations below design capacity and reducing populations regardless of capacity are somehow different. Can you clarify where the distinction lies?

      From the Habeas case against San Quentin (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/a160122.html):

      “We therefore recommend that the prison population at San Quentin be reduced to 50% of current capacity (even further reduction would be more beneficial) via decarceration; this will allow every cell in North and West Blocks to be single-room occupancy.”

      They reference design capacity and not population size initially, but later use the terms interchangeably. It possibly implies that the outcomes are close enough and do not need to be distinguished.

      I’d appreciate your thoughts and thank you once again for sharing feedback.

       

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for